(18-12-2013 11:24 AM)Dom Wrote: Ok, what do you mean by listening for guidance? Did you hear an actual audible voice? Was the voice in your head? Or?

God speaks to people differently. He speaks to me through feelings. These feelings are confident and without regret. Before my regeneration, I always second guessed everything I did... now, if I get it from God, I just do it and not think about it or dwell on it.

This goes with God giving me my desires.

Yes, and God always agrees with everybody., for some reason. Evolutionary theists, literalists, believers in eternal hell, universalists, new earthers, old earthers, believers in different rapture variants, supporters of the death penalty, detractors of the death penalty, women in the clergy, no women in the clergy, sex before marriage, no sex before marriage, homosexuals, no homosexuals, guns, no guns, etc. etc

What does that tell you, considering that each one believes to have a personal relationship with Jesus? People got burned because Jesus likes to speak to people differently, so I guess he should be more careful with his adaptation skills.

Why don't you have a real relationship, write down what he says and settle all these contentions once and for good?

Isn't maybe more likely that you guys are speaking to yourself and agree about each point of the discussion?

Do you realize that "No True Scotsman" is an ad hoc argument, and an informal fallacy?

And do you realize just how unreliable personal experiences are? For instance... millions of people are entertained by illusionists who make it appear they can do magic. This is not proof that people can perform magic or that magic exists, but rather proof of just how unreliable our sense are.

(18-12-2013 12:25 PM)anonymous66 Wrote: Do you realize that "No True Scotsman" is an ad hoc argument, and an informal fallacy?

Yep, I do. But, I've proposed that it's not a fallacy when it concerns an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being. Humans are imperfect and fallacious; therefore, are subjected to fallacies. If God is truly perfect, then He isn't open to fallacies - which means that His personal messages could only come to the elect. it would be impossible for an inspired message to come from a non-elect. So, in that regard, "No True Scotsman" is valid.

(18-12-2013 12:25 PM)anonymous66 Wrote: And do you realize just how unreliable personal experiences are? For instance... millions of people are entertained by illusionists who make it appear they can do magic. This is not proof that people can perform magic or that magic exists, but rather proof of just how unreliable our sense are.

I have stated this over and over and over again. In fact, I even stated it in my explanation. No personal experience can be used as empirical evidence or evidence for others. It only serves as evidence for that person. But in regards to "hearing" or "seeing" from God (which is based on personal experience), this type of anecdotal evidence is enough for that person. It's not meant to be for anyone else nor does it attempt to prove its validity to anyone else outside the individual's personal experience.

How does one link any "feelings" to a supernatural ruler or source? A feeling is a feeling, yet some people claim to know some outside force behind all of the good feelings. Feelings and emotions are a result of chemical signals in your brain and that is that. Why is it when the voice in your head says " wow she/he is sure sexy" it is a sin, and when you hear "man I need a new job" it is God's words inpiring you to better your career.

There is absolutely no way to distinguish your own thoughts from any supposed god.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —

(18-12-2013 12:35 PM)kingschosen Wrote: I have stated this over and over and over again. In fact, I even stated it in my explanation. No personal experience can be used as empirical evidence or evidence for others. It only serves as evidence for that person. But in regards to "hearing" or "seeing" from God (which is based on personal experience), this type of anecdotal evidence is enough for that person. It's not meant to be for anyone else nor does it attempt to prove its validity to anyone else outside the individual's personal experience.

So it is basically wishfull thinking for that individual and holds no merit otherwise is what you are saying?

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —

(18-12-2013 12:25 PM)anonymous66 Wrote: Do you realize that "No True Scotsman" is an ad hoc argument, and an informal fallacy?

Yep, I do. But, I've proposed that it's not a fallacy when it concerns an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being. Humans are imperfect and fallacious; therefore, are subjected to fallacies. If God is truly perfect, then He isn't open to fallacies - which means that His personal messages could only come to the elect. it would be impossible for an inspired message to come from a non-elect. So, in that regard, "No True Scotsman" is valid.

(18-12-2013 12:25 PM)anonymous66 Wrote: And do you realize just how unreliable personal experiences are? For instance... millions of people are entertained by illusionists who make it appear they can do magic. This is not proof that people can perform magic or that magic exists, but rather proof of just how unreliable our sense are.

I have stated this over and over and over again. In fact, I even stated it in my explanation. No personal experience can be used as empirical evidence or evidence for others. It only serves as evidence for that person. But in regards to "hearing" or "seeing" from God (which is based on personal experience), this type of anecdotal evidence is enough for that person. It's not meant to be for anyone else nor does it attempt to prove its validity to anyone else outside the individual's personal experience.

Question for you: if you start hearing voices in your head, what are you going to do? Accept them as personal evidence that there is an invisible being talking to you, or do you go to a doctor?

Brains are complex beasts. They can show you things that aren't real, when you're awake as hallucinations or illusions, and when you're unconscious as dreams. They can hear voices where there are none. You don't need to be mentally ill to be deceived by your brain, because the brain is damn good at convincing itself of things. I've had dreams that started with me ''waking up'', and had me living through what felt like a whole day, and eventually going to sleep. A whole day that never happened, thanks to Mr. Brain.

People also see and hear what they want to see and hear, and will attribute things to their god that they want their god to be responsible for. If you're looking for inspiration and you experience something positive, you might identify it as the influence of a god. You ask, something happens, therefore you have received.

Of course, it's always your god, or your prophet, or an angel of your religion, or at least something you have knowledge of. The brain doesn't conjure illusions from nothing; it draws on existing experience and knowledge. And while to an observing skeptic that might make divine experiences questionable (ie. A Christian child without knowledge of Hinduism has never seen a vision of Hanuman...), to the one who experiences it, it's confirmation for their existing beliefs. It's not just a face in a mountain than can be dismissed, it's something dear to them.

It's hard to ignore what you've seen, heard, and felt. To you it's very real. Feelings override rational thought, generally.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

I have experienced enough sensational and random one time phenomena to be pretty confident that every person who thinks they have had a supernatural experience is either: lying, on drugs, has an actual disorder that includes hallucination/delusion/paranoia, or has convinced themselves that something that they didn't understand or was poorly perceived was a supernatural event.

*Also*, I think many people trick themselves into thinking some instances of internal dialogue are not coming from their own brain.

Some personal examples:
-I can close my eyes and do this weird focus thing which almost feels like vibrating my mind and a warm almost tingly feeling rushes over my entire body (like a wave from head to toe). ...if I was religious, I would attribute this to some spirit entering my body (or some other nonsense).
-I specifically remember waking up in the middle of the night when I was 7 or 8 and seeing zombies in my room..coming to get me. I screamed and yelled until my big brother who was in the same room picked up a shoe and threw it at me and said "SHUT UP." ...if I was religious I would probably attribute this to demons either playing tricks on my mind, or actually visiting me.
-I have several recurring dreams that happen years apart. Most are nightmares. ...if I was religious I might think this was spiritual guidance or warning.
-SEVERAL times I have seen something that looks like a human form or a monster form as a shadow, or heard a noise at night. Most of it proved to be a false construction when I did a double take.
-I get de ja vu very often. Probably 20+ times a year. ...more guidance? The matrix??
-My bed has rumbled at night multiple times. Easily explainable by the fact that I usually don't live on the first floor, and there are miniature earthquakes happening ALL THE TIME that most people don't feel at all.

Anyways to sum it up, either people are crazy, lying, under the influence, or have convinced themselves that something they didn't understand was actually supernatural. IMO

(18-12-2013 12:25 PM)anonymous66 Wrote: Do you realize that "No True Scotsman" is an ad hoc argument, and an informal fallacy?

Yep, I do. But, I've proposed that it's not a fallacy when it concerns an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being. Humans are imperfect and fallacious; therefore, are subjected to fallacies. If God is truly perfect, then He isn't open to fallacies - which means that His personal messages could only come to the elect. it would be impossible for an inspired message to come from a non-elect. So, in that regard, "No True Scotsman" is valid.

Here's the thing, though. You are engaging in circular reasoning. You are relying on imperfect humanity to convince you that this God exists in the first place. Other imperfect humans accept that there isn't enough evidence to warrant a belief in a God, and that the God as described in the Bible can be disproved.

You are also relying on imperfect humanity to convince you that the elect exists in the first place.

Some people usually simulate experiences. When an author creates a character, very in depth they can pose questions to them and they would know how they would answer. This is great practice to always keep your character In character. In an author's mind the character actually exists or at least have a suspension of disbelief. We speak to ourselves, that internal dialogue that can trigger deep emotional responses also sometimes it used to organize our thoughts. We all have an idea of God or at least a construct of it based on our experiences, what we are told or learned. Usually when people "hear" God it is the ultimate authority, beautifully worded unquestioning confidence and boldness. It always knows the answer. Could this be God or merely a representation of what God would say? What would you feel like if God actually spoke to you?